Re(2): Attachments Restricted to One Folder
I agree about the attachments folder. Couldn't PowerMail place attachments for messages in separate folders for each message? Becky2 for Windows does this, and is one of the reasons I use it as my e-mail application on my Windows PC. It is very convenient when you receive half a dozen attachments, or more, with one message. The Show in Finder menu would take you to a folder that contains all the files attached to a message, and only those files. Mark. At Tue, Mar 18, 2003, the nimble fingers of Jonathan Greene typed the following: I hear you on this one. The attachments folder is a nice concept, but since I just switched over I have well over 3000 items and renders using it via the finder very difficult. I have already run through and killed many similar and obvious dupes thanks to rounds of revisions on work for clients over the past few years. Multiple folders, filtered by rule would be great though I would still have a great deal of manual labor ahead to file all this stuff. -- Mark Smith (The Red Whales Rool) Ashiya, Hyogo, Japan. Selected Japanese match reports and league tables. http://www2.odn.ne.jp/~hab26240/
Re: Attachments Restricted to One Folder
I will not debate eventual OSX folder limitations, tech stuff of which I don't know too much, but for the record I must say this: Please DO NOT confirm to the norm* mentioned below. The PowerMail attachment behaviour is the first and very reason why I went back to PowerMail after a year with Entourage. I don't get thousands of attachments, but I do get a lot and they are big. I deal with raw musical files (like hard disk recordings etc) and high resolution graphical/video files, and it's not unusual for me to receive attachments that are half a GB or bigger. As I also travel a lot, it's very easy to forget the minor ones ranging from 5-50 MB when I get back and have a few 100 mails to deal with. Man, talk about large databases after half a year... So what I want to say is we all have different needs, and I'm so happy PowerMail offers an alternative to one big, oversized database. And this is for the same reasons you mention: I like to keep all mails I get just in case, and I also like to keep all attachments for a while just in case. After some time I want to get rid of the attachments I don't need, but keep the mails. If the attachments are all in the same folder it's done in a few seconds. If the attachments are stored embedded in the mail itself, I have to manually look through hundreds or thousands of mails in all different mail folders to see which carry attachments, and then delete the attachments one by one = it will never be done, because it takes too much time. This problem would remain even with a solution with separate mail folder databases, if the attachments are embedded. Best, Max Gossell *Btw: The word norm could be debated in this case -- the big dragons Microsoft and Apple let everything go into one big database, yes, but what I remember from the mid 90-ies the norm was to put attachments in a separate folder, just like PowerMail does. When I switched over to Entourage I was amazed about what an incredibly backward solution they had chosen regarding attachments, but thought hey, that's Microsoft -- remember?. Then Mail.app came, using the same solution... -- Max Gossell Progetto Avanti - The Swedish Guitar Project Warner Classics International Recording Artists http://www.progettoavanti.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- At 18 mars 2003, 15.20 CET, Bob Seaner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not advocating any changes, but I do wish to bring this to the attention of the user base in case they are concerned over this requirement. If I move my users over to PowerMail, it will take no time at all for them to have attachments numbering in the thousands. And since filed messages are an ever increasing quantity, (for all practical purposes, I don't live in an ideal world) the number of attachments landing in that one directory is open-ended. This makes browsing for an attachment considerably more problematic. (I am considering making a separate volume just for attachments. With this setup, any dragging of attachments from an email to another directory will be by very nature a copy and not a move. This has some ramifications that need to be explained to users.) One possible solution would be for PowerMail to keep the attachments with the email the way it arrived. Other mail programs do this, in fact, most email programs do this. I suspect this is a non-starter with the PowerMail developers. Since the current method is counter to the norm, they probably have strong convictions about doing it any other way. One ramification of keeping the attachments as part of the message is that the single mail database file would grow alarming large in very short order. One way to fix that is to use separate databases for each filed mail folder, which is also the norm. Consequently, having separate databases for each filed mail folder allows for more practical incremental file backups. I know the PowerMail team has put much thought into these issues. While we may or may not agree with their choices, (and are free to use another program if we don't like them) it would be nice to have an understanding why they chose to do things the way they have in light of the fact that the PowerMail way, at least on the surface appears not to, theoretically speaking, scale well with larger and larger amounts of filed mail. Respectfully, Bob Seaner
Re: Attachments Restricted to One Folder
I hear you on this one. The attachments folder is a nice concept, but since I just switched over I have well over 3000 items and renders using it via the finder very difficult. I have already run through and killed many similar and obvious dupes thanks to rounds of revisions on work for clients over the past few years. Multiple folders, filtered by rule would be great though I would still have a great deal of manual labor ahead to file all this stuff. -- Information isn't wisdom. Information isn't learning. If information were learning, you could be educated by memorizing the world almanac. If you did that, you wouldn't be educated. You'd be weird. - David McCullough, author/historian, in INC. magazine, May 2000 on Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:20:44 -0500 / Bob Seaner said: I'd like to elicit the list's thoughts regarding the PowerMail (under OS X) requirement that attachments stay in one folder in order for the email that contained the attachment to maintain reference. The Finder under OS 9 encountered extreme difficulty managing directories that contained large amounts of files. On some systems a few hundred files would be enough for the Finder to not show all the contents of a folder or otherwise bog down and be unresponsive while in that directory. Also, an alert in an open/save dialog box would appear indicating that the entire contents of the directory would not be displayed when pointed to same. It very well may be true that OS X does not have any of these problems when dealing with very large directories. My very informal testing suggests that you have more problems trying to create a directory with a large number of files than you do with working with them once they are created. (My method was to duplicate my attachments folder and then duplicate its contents a few times until I had over a thousand files. This caused the Finder to go unresponsive twice, requiring it to be relaunched twice.) Under OS 9 it was possible for a program to keep track of files independent of the filename. For instance, Claris Emailer could keep track of which attachments belonged to which email even if you moved or renamed the attachments. I don't know if this method is available under OS X, or if it is, if Apple is discouraging its use. I'm also not sure that this method is any better than PowerMail's current method. It certainly had its drawbacks, as anyone who moved a Emailer account from one computer to another knows. I'm not advocating any changes, but I do wish to bring this to the attention of the user base in case they are concerned over this requirement. If I move my users over to PowerMail, it will take no time at all for them to have attachments numbering in the thousands. And since filed messages are an ever increasing quantity, (for all practical purposes, I don't live in an ideal world) the number of attachments landing in that one directory is open-ended. This makes browsing for an attachment considerably more problematic. (I am considering making a separate volume just for attachments. With this setup, any dragging of attachments from an email to another directory will be by very nature a copy and not a move. This has some ramifications that need to be explained to users.) One possible solution would be for PowerMail to keep the attachments with the email the way it arrived. Other mail programs do this, in fact, most email programs do this. I suspect this is a non-starter with the PowerMail developers. Since the current method is counter to the norm, they probably have strong convictions about doing it any other way. One ramification of keeping the attachments as part of the message is that the single mail database file would grow alarming large in very short order. One way to fix that is to use separate databases for each filed mail folder, which is also the norm. Consequently, having separate databases for each filed mail folder allows for more practical incremental file backups. I know the PowerMail team has put much thought into these issues. While we may or may not agree with their choices, (and are free to use another program if we don't like them) it would be nice to have an understanding why they chose to do things the way they have in light of the fact that the PowerMail way, at least on the surface appears not to, theoretically speaking, scale well with larger and larger amounts of filed mail. Respectfully, Bob Seaner
Re: Attachments Restricted to One Folder
Received from: Bob Seaner At: 8:20 pm (GMT) on Tue, Mar 18, 2003 If I move my users over to PowerMail, it will take no time at all for them to have attachments numbering in the thousands. And since filed messages are an ever increasing quantity, (for all practical purposes, I don't live in an ideal world) the number of attachments landing in that one directory is open-ended. This makes browsing for an attachment considerably more problematic. I, for one, would like to be able to specify more than one attachment folder. The obvious place to involve separate attachment folders would be in the Filters; we've got a filter action for moving attachments to the Finder Trash, could we not have one that moves attachments to a folder of our choosing? That way I could file attachments in folders according to sender (or any other criteria detectable by the Filters). If that sender's specified attachment folder is deleted (in the finder) then the filter could simply revert to the default Attachments folder as specified in Preferences. Actually, I'd like Filters to include more options for dealing with attachments -- something that they more or less ignore. As well as the above filter action (File in...), I'd like a bunch of attachment based filter conditions: a couple that spring to mind are: 1. If message has attachment... 2. If attachment name is/starts with/ends with, et al... (useful for putting all jpegs into one folder, all .doc files into another, etc. I suppose that the above could be done using the Other field filter conditions, but for that one needs an understanding of email servers and headers that I don't have and, I suspect, nor do many other people. Filter conditions/actions explicitly devoted to attachments would make things much easier. Oh, and one more thing: I've said it many many times before and I'll keep on saying it: There really needs to be a third checkbox on every filter alongside the Apply to incoming and Apply to outgoing ones that makes the filter apply to the message BEFORE it is sent, not after. Rick --- G4/500 MHz (DP) :: OS 10.2.4 :: PM 4.1.2 :: 3 pane mode :: 768 MB RAM www.sharkattack.co.uk
Attachments Restricted to One Folder
I'd like to elicit the list's thoughts regarding the PowerMail (under OS X) requirement that attachments stay in one folder in order for the email that contained the attachment to maintain reference. The Finder under OS 9 encountered extreme difficulty managing directories that contained large amounts of files. On some systems a few hundred files would be enough for the Finder to not show all the contents of a folder or otherwise bog down and be unresponsive while in that directory. Also, an alert in an open/save dialog box would appear indicating that the entire contents of the directory would not be displayed when pointed to same. It very well may be true that OS X does not have any of these problems when dealing with very large directories. My very informal testing suggests that you have more problems trying to create a directory with a large number of files than you do with working with them once they are created. (My method was to duplicate my attachments folder and then duplicate its contents a few times until I had over a thousand files. This caused the Finder to go unresponsive twice, requiring it to be relaunched twice.) Under OS 9 it was possible for a program to keep track of files independent of the filename. For instance, Claris Emailer could keep track of which attachments belonged to which email even if you moved or renamed the attachments. I don't know if this method is available under OS X, or if it is, if Apple is discouraging its use. I'm also not sure that this method is any better than PowerMail's current method. It certainly had its drawbacks, as anyone who moved a Emailer account from one computer to another knows. I'm not advocating any changes, but I do wish to bring this to the attention of the user base in case they are concerned over this requirement. If I move my users over to PowerMail, it will take no time at all for them to have attachments numbering in the thousands. And since filed messages are an ever increasing quantity, (for all practical purposes, I don't live in an ideal world) the number of attachments landing in that one directory is open-ended. This makes browsing for an attachment considerably more problematic. (I am considering making a separate volume just for attachments. With this setup, any dragging of attachments from an email to another directory will be by very nature a copy and not a move. This has some ramifications that need to be explained to users.) One possible solution would be for PowerMail to keep the attachments with the email the way it arrived. Other mail programs do this, in fact, most email programs do this. I suspect this is a non-starter with the PowerMail developers. Since the current method is counter to the norm, they probably have strong convictions about doing it any other way. One ramification of keeping the attachments as part of the message is that the single mail database file would grow alarming large in very short order. One way to fix that is to use separate databases for each filed mail folder, which is also the norm. Consequently, having separate databases for each filed mail folder allows for more practical incremental file backups. I know the PowerMail team has put much thought into these issues. While we may or may not agree with their choices, (and are free to use another program if we don't like them) it would be nice to have an understanding why they chose to do things the way they have in light of the fact that the PowerMail way, at least on the surface appears not to, theoretically speaking, scale well with larger and larger amounts of filed mail. Respectfully, Bob Seaner
